J3/02-133 Date: 2002 February 16 To: J3 From: Walt Brainerd Subject: Typos and minor wording 17:9 "struvtures" -> "structures" 18:5 "not in COMMON" ? A variable in common is local, I think. It shares values with other variables, perhaps, because it is in common. 18:9 The first sentence of 2.4.3.1.2 mentions "undefined". Why doesn't the first sentence of 2.4.3.1.1 also? 32:37 "type-param-value" -> "scalar-int-expr" type-paramp-value may be * or : 34:3 "this set of" -> "these" or "the numeric" It just seems to read better to me. 36:Note 4.9 The minus signs look like hyphens to me, but maybe this is not worth worrying about. 36:Note 4.10:4 Add a comma after "For example" 43:18-19 " ...that contains neither a reference to a specification function nor any object designator other than a named constant or a subobject thereof." 51:Note 4.39 What does the second example TRIANGLE have to do with accessibility? Should the text say "A derived-type definition may have a component that is of a derived type with private components" ??? 51:Note 4.39 The paragraphs in the notes don't have vertical space like the ones in the normative text. 68:15 "POINTER" -> "ALLOCATABLE or POINTER" ??? 71:7 Delete extra space in "A TYPE" 111:10-11 Move first paragraph of 7.1.1 to last paragraph of 7.1 (it has nothing to do with form). 152:4 "a named" -> "named" 152:4 delete "or variable" or "or variable" -> "(which may be a variable)" The harm with the current words is that they imply (suggest?) that a variable is not an expression. This sort of thing was carefuly expunged in the past. 195:27-28 "This reference shall be to neither a disassociated procedure pointer nor a dummy proceudre or dummy procedure pointer that is not present." 252:14 Italicize "binding-name" What happened to the change bars?